Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Do you actually read your programs out loud ?
>> Haven't done that since I went to school
>
> It's not just the students. Teachers have to speak too.
Guess I have been at the computer for too long then,
nowadays I mostly communicate through email. Or CVS ;-)
But usually we spoke about design, and then coded the
details. I don't recall long sessions or reading/writing
such signs, or maybe it was just because I skipped those.
Or maybe because they were in a different language anyway ?
Seems I'll still have trouble coding in my native tongue:
> void anders() {}
> void björklund() {}
>
> void main()
> {
> anders();
> björklund();
> }
dmd anders.d
[8]
> /var/tmp//cclIBzkT.s:44:Invalid mnemonic '¶rklundFZv'
So I think I will stick with abstract math symbols, thank you. :)
And using English for communication such as this, and comments.
But if '!==' is now deprecated, then TOKnotidentity should have some
kind of new token shouldn't it ? Then again there is no TOKnotin...
(in dmd/src/dmd/lexer.c and lexer.h, that is; The DMD source code)
Could be since "in" returns a pointer and not a bit, these days ?
But this construct is pretty common: "assert (foo !== null);"
If that is soon deprecated, it needs some kind of replacement ?
I know that Walter will suggest "assert(foo)", so I'll drop it.
--anders
PS. Had the computer read it to me. It *was* funny!
(App > Services > Speech > Start Speaking Text)

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:cspa3k$v95$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "nail" <nail_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:cson1b$5f6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> >PS.
>> >I still think that we need 'isnt' for '!=='
>>
>> In this case isnt must be :)
>>
>> What about future? Does === will become deprecated?
>
> Yes, use "is" from now on. The === turned out to be a problem distinguishing
> from == with some fonts.
So're we getting an 'isnt'?
if(!(x is null))
is never going to be an attractive form

"Paul Bonser" <misterpib@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cspjj1$1agb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Vathix wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:50:43 +0100, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Bonser wrote:
>>>
>>>> I must have had a good English teacher in high school, because such things pain me. (As well as its-it's
>>>> their-there-they're to-too and a lot (the only proper way is a lot, two separate words, not one)...but I guess
>>>> I'm a bit obsessive compulsive, too...)
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you're not in favor of an "aint" keyword then ? :-)
>>>
>>> Or maybe it should use "p is not null", just like in SQL...
>>>
>>> Oh, well: !(p is null)
>>>
>>> --anders
>>
>>
>> I like the previously mentioned "p !is null". Would also work with "in", "key !in aa".
>
> I'm not actually opposed to using isnt, I'd just have a hard time for a while typing it without the "'"...isnot would
> work, too.
isnot is better

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:csqnjr$2hv2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>
>> if(!(x is null))
>>
>> is never going to be an attractive form
>
> Until there are booleans in D, you can use:
>
> if(x)
I'm afraid I never write a non-boolean conditional (sub-)expression, so you won't catch me doing that. ;)

Georg Wrede wrote:
> I ignored it, since the main point was kind of obvious. :-)
>
> In my mother tongue "at most" is just one word, as is "at least". My
> gripe is actually the pronunciation of "<=" as "less than or equal to",
> in all spoken languages. It sounds clumsy and overly technical,
> especially as it refers to a single operator, or concept, more than a
> combination of two.
>
> Back to the original point, I like "isnt". It should be perfectly ok
> since nobody seems to have a problem with "endif". We might use "isnot",
> but "isnt" feels nicer.
As an English speaker, "isnt" feels very informal. I doesn't (!) quite
feel correct to use informal English contractions in a computer language.